"frankly, she deserved better."
????????

with years of political experience, didnt she choose the people she wanted closest to her and valued the most?
...by the way, how many more months before bill clinton comes out and endorses our democratic nominee? unreal. (maybe he will be joining wolfeson and davis over at fox.)

In Patrick Healy's story in the Times today about Obama supporters' reluctance to pony up to retire HRC's campaign debt -- which, frankly, just seemed like a story designed to fan the flames of intra-Dem conflict (but that's the sort of bs I expect from Healy) -- there was at least one quite salient point: to the extent people are reluctant to help retire HRC's debt, it's because almost all of it is going to that asshole Mark Penn. And now he's buddies with Karen Fucking Hughes? Yeah, I'll go get my checkbook right now.

And this is a new development how? James Carville is MARRIED to Mary Matalin, for chrissake.

Ezra:
Jacqueline makes a great point. Why let Hillary off the hook? She is the one who hired these people. As Matt Stoller pointed out on OpenLeft yesterday, Wolfson had a previous history betraying Progressive causes. So when will you take Hillary and Bill to task for hiring these people? No one forced them to do it.

Y'know, if Clinton was so convinced Penn was devoted and loyal, why did she pay him such ungodly sums for his services? OK, probably she didn't care how much he wanted because she saw him as devoted and loyal, but still.

This was, and is, the best case against voting for Clinton. Much of the president's job is staffing---who you choose for Secretary of This-and-That is much of how the president really makes policy and sets the agenda (the speeches are mostly sideshow). And the thought of Clinton applying her awful hiring instincts to the government was and is terrifying.

And this is a new development how? James Carville is MARRIED to Mary Matalin, for chrissake.

This is, quite frankly, one of the dumbest things that I've ever read. God forbid you marry out of love rather than politics.

This was, and is, the best case against voting for Clinton. Much of the president's job is staffing---who you choose for Secretary of This-and-That is much of how the president really makes policy and sets the agenda (the speeches are mostly sideshow). And the thought of Clinton applying her awful hiring instincts to the government was and is terrifying

I find this amusing considering we were just writing about the "excellent" additions that the Obama campaign added from the Clinton campaign

They were her choices, so I'd say she deserved them.

I find this amusing considering we were just writing about the "excellent" additions that the Obama campaign added from the Clinton campaign

It's only amusing if you assume that the original comment dictated that all of Clinton's hires were bad. If they were even just bad in the majority, then you could easily claim that those hires were good because they were from the minority of good hires that Clinton made.

Ezra, why not lead with this? Why keep fighting Clinton, [she's gone if you haven't heard] when Barak is aiding Bush, Cheney & John McCain destroy the constitution?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa/index.html

Wednesday July 9, 2008 08:21 EDT
Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama
(updated below - Update II)

What we learned in December, 2005 that George Bush and the telecoms were doing -- listening in on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants -- is a felony under clear U.S. law, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense. Anyone can go read the section of FISA -- right here -- that says that as clearly as can be:

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -- (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . .
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

It was also as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as can be. For the Government to invade our communications with no probable cause showing to a court is exactly what the Founders prohibited as clearly as the English language permitted.
But today, the Democratic-led Congress -- with the support of both John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of whom will even bother to show up and vote -- will cover-up those crimes. Law Professor and Fourth Amendment expert Jonathan Turley was on MSNBC's Countdown with Rachel Maddow last night and gave as succinct an explanation for what Democrats -- not the Bush administration, but Democrats -- will do today. Anyone with any lingering doubts about what is taking place today in our country should watch this:

As Turley says, and as I've written many times over the last two weeks, what is most appalling here beyond the bill itself are the pure falsehoods being spewed to the public about what Congress is doing -- and those falsehoods are largely being spewed not by Republicans. Republicans are gleefully admitting, even boasting, that this bill gives them everything Bush and Cheney wanted and more, and includes only minor changes from the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill passed last February (which Obama, seeking the Democratic Party nomination, made a point of opposing).

Rather, the insultingly false claims about this bill -- it brings the FISA court back into eavesdropping! it actually improves civil liberties! Obama will now go after the telecoms criminally! Government spying and lawbreaking isn't really that important anyway! -- are being disseminated by the Democratic Congressional leadership and, most of all, by those desperate to glorify Barack Obama and justify anything and everything he does. Many of these are the same people who spent the last five years screaming that Bush was shredding the Constitution, that spying on Americans was profoundly dangerous, that the political establishment did nothing about Bush's lawbreaking.

It's been quite disturbing to watch them turn on a dime -- completely reverse everything they claimed to believe -- the minute Obama issued his statement saying that he would support this bill. They actually have the audacity to say that this bill -- a bill which Bush, Cheney and the entire GOP eagerly support, while virtually every civil libertarian vehemently opposes -- will increase the civil liberties that Americans enjoy, as though Dick Cheney, Mike McConnell and "Kit" Bond decided that it was urgently important to pass a new bill to restrict presidential spying and enhance our civil liberties. How completely do you have to relinquish your critical faculties at Barack Obama's altar in order to get yourself to think that way? [more see link in header]

"This is, quite frankly, one of the dumbest things that I've ever read. God forbid you marry out of love rather than politics."

Taking the bait, I actually think decisions like this have a large salience. There are beliefs we have and care about and we generally like people who share them as well. If you have committed your whole life to, say, ending racism or helping the poor, then you would find it difficult to meet, then date, then marry people who are racists and social darwinists.

If you love someone who ahs different political beliefs, no one's saying you shouldn't marry. But how did you come to love someone who's standing for the exact opposite you believe in? Life isn't a romantic comedy, most people like people who agree with them.

A large part of the country believes people who live in DC don't actually care about ideology. That the DC bubble is just a bunch of courtiers posturing to get more power and prestige, who have more in common with their nearby opponents than with their common-person supporters across the country.

The Carville's and Penn's of the world prove that right. At the end of the day, James Carville had more in common with the woman who's the chief of staff to Dick Cheney, than to anyone else. That really should tell you a lot about James Carville and the people who hire him.

There are beliefs we have and care about and we generally like people who share them as well... If you love someone who ahs different political beliefs, no one's saying you shouldn't marry.

Exactly-- I just can't overlook what I think of as an individual's public character, which is typically a reflection of their political beliefs and vice versa. A lot of people, especially women, seem to focus almost exclusively on partners' relationship-centered behavior, which-- while important for obvious reasons-- still isn't much of a character test overall.

Then again, living in the south makes my position a damned hard one to live with for most females, because men in their thirties & forties are even more conservative and/or libertarian than in other regions. I can deal with it, but I'm more offended by self-satisfied conservatism than by being dateless on a given holiday.

Keep in mind that Carville's a hired gun who'll sell his services to the highest bidder, for instance,
Mexico's rotten-to-the-core Institutional
Revolutionary Party, which was justly tossed out of office in 2000.

Axelrod specializes in corporate astroturf and machine politics.

"Frankly, she deserved better."

She surely deserved better than she got from you, Ezra. And what exactly is your guy doing again?

Talking about limiting a woman's right to choose, going along with FISA, spreading the faith-based adn gun love. I honestly don't see how any real Progressives or Liberals or Democrats (whatever you call yourself these days) can support this guy.

Plus, he steals homework.

I wouldn't be judging Penn et all too harshly if I were you.